ENGL147N Week 2 Discussion: Argumentative Strategies
ENGL147N Week 2 Discussion: Argumentative Strategies
Welcome to Week 2! You may begin posting on March 9 credit. We will be discussing Argumentative Strategies this week. For this discussion, you are choosing from a list of Pro-Position articles and evaluating how effective the article’s argument was using Toulmin’s model. Specifically, you are looking for the claim, grounds, warrants, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttal.
You’ve already started thinking about your own strategies for your pro-position arguments. You even began outlining and drafting the pro-position paper and may have used the Toulmin model to create that basic outline.
When we think about good argumentation, we are considering how persuasive it is. Did the author present solid claims, back those claims, provide research to support key points, offer a counterargument, and then explain why the counter falls short?
Aside from the textbook reading assigned for the week, here is some additional interesting reading on argumentation:
O’Keefe, D. (2012). Conviction, Persuasion, and Argumentation: Untangling the Ends and Means of Influence. Argumentation, 26(1), 19–32.
Be sure to use an outside resource in your main post, and please post that before Wednesday. See our discussion rubric as a reference when you are writing your initial post.
If you have any questions at all, email me or post to our class Q & A.
Surrogate mothers 10 years on: a longitudinal study of psychological well-being and relationships with the parents and child.
Claim: What was the article’s main point? What’s the thesis?
The author claims that most surrogate mothers do not experience any psychological problems or depression and tend to have a positive relationship with the parents and child even after 10 yrs. Thesis: Studies have shown that most Surrogate mothers continue to remain psychologically healthy. Even after a decade they continue to maintain a positive relationship with the child, parents and their spouse/partners.
Grounds: What kinds of evidence did the author use to support his/her argument? Provide an example.
The author has used a study conducted by V. Jadva, S. Imrie, and S. Golombok in 2003 where 34 surrogates were interviewed one year after the surrogate baby was born. The original 34 surrogates were again interviewed 10yrs after the surrogate baby was born. Based on this study, it was concluded that majority of surrogate mothers do not experience psychological problems in the decade following the birth of the surrogacy child and maintain a healthy relationship with the surrogate child, parents and their own family.
Warrants: Did the author(s) successfully connect the evidence to the main point? How so?
Yes, in my opinion the author has successfully connected the evidence to the main point. The evidence provided by the author is a detailed study conducted in 2003 of 34 surrogate mothers over a period of 10 yrs. The author has described how the study was conducted in great detail.
Backing: How credible were the sources the author(s) applied? How does credulity affect your overall response?
The author has given a list of credible references to support his claim. He has explained the surrogate study in great detail and how they were conducted and how the data was acquired, analyzed and concluded. Credulity did not affect my overall response.
Qualifiers: Did you notice any absolutes (all, every, each) or limiters (some, several, many)? How did they add or subtract from the argument?
Yes I did notice absolutes like all and each used a few times in the article. Limiter like some has been used few times whereas several and many has been used one time each in the article. Absolutes like all and each were used to make the argument sound more convincing and Limiters were used to let the audience know that it does not include everyone but a few.
Rebuttal: Did the author(s) present any points of opposition and counterarguments? How did it influence your reaction?
The author’s point of opposition was about the small sample size of the surrogate study as well as the non-participation of some participants in the second phase of study. The author counter-argues by stating that the non-participation was because the research team was unable to contact them as they had changed residence in the 10 yrs. time. Another point of opposition is the low level of kappa value related to frequency of contact with father. The author counter-argues that this type of contact is difficult to classify and maybe sporadic. The author validates his argument by point to the high kappa value for contact between mother and child to prove that the scale was reliable. In my opinion the counter-arguments to the both the opposition points was very convincing and did not affect my perception of the article.
(n.d.). Retrieved from https://academic-oup-Links to an external site.com.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/humrep/article/30/2/373/728908
I questioned the statement about “all” of the surrogates having positive outcomes. I would have expected there to be maybe a small percentage who were regretful. I suppose those who get into surrogacy go into it with the idea that this is not their baby, and when the time comes to have the child and give it to the parents, they have been preparing for it for some time. Still, I would think there would be some that unexpectedly felt sad about it. I do think that the fact that there were only 20 surrogates in this study really makes it quite limited. It does state that the extent to which the findings can be generalized is not known. I think that is a small sample. I would want to see some diversity among surrogates (more info on their religions, races, socioeconomic status, etc) to see if there were differences in their feelings based on cultural differences. At the same time, I do think that when someone goes into surrogacy, it’s a process, and they are likely prepared and do not ever see the child as their own. The surrogate, I’m assuming, is usually not a biological contributor. I do wonder, though, if it’s hard to feel the baby growing, kicking, etc and know they will not keep it. You would think that at least a few would feel sad after the event.
I think your absolutely correct that because of the small sample size of the surrogate mother it cannot be absolutely said that none of surrogate mothers felt sad or may have regretted their decision. But in my opinion it would be unfair to blame the researchers for the small sample size. This study was conducted back in 2003 when surrogacy was still not very popular, besides the social stigma of carrying someone else’s baby would have prevented many women to be surrogate mothers. I am sure some religious and cultural beliefs may have prevented some women to be surrogate mother back then. Besides some surrogate mother may not have wanted to be part of the research. These could be some of the reasons why the sample size of surrogate mothers was so small. I am sure a few of the surrogate mother may have felt sad immediately after birth or later in life about separating from the surrogate baby but as per research study it did not affect their overall psychological well-being or their relationship with the child or the family over 10.
You did a great job with your analysis. This article is very interesting. I do have to wonder if the surrogates were given an initial Psych evaluation to determine their baseline. Also, I would think it would be interesting for the surrogates to have an evaluation sooner than 1 year after giving birth. Most mothers go through postpartum depression a week to a year after giving birth. I have to wonder if they were over any postpartum depression they experienced by the 1-year time frame. I have 2 friends who were surrogates. Both of them kept a close relationship with the families they were surrogates for. Both of the ladies even pumped and provided the mothers with breast milk for the babies. Both ladies who were surrogates had their own children and were able to have time with the babies and had their children meet the babies and the parents, because the surrogate’s family suffered loss, once the babies went to their intended families. I felt that to be very interesting. I feel this article was well written. Is there anything you felt the author could have included helping persuade the audience? Do you feel like the research that was provided seemed to be adequate to support their claim?